by Akan Takuri
Information about the research of who the real Hebrew Israelite's were
|External Verification and Archaeology. For biblical scholars, just as significant is the surviving physical evidence (or rather lack of it) for the conquest. Archaeologists have long noted that there is scant support for the kind of violent destruction of the cities of Canaan – especially the ones mentioned in Joshua. Think for a second: if one were to look for archaeological evidence, or other external verification, to support the historical narratives of Joshua, what would one look for?
References to the invasion and conquest in other written sources outside the Bible.
Evidence that there were indeed walled cities and towns in Canaan at the time.
Archaeological evidence that the cities and towns mentioned actually were destroyed at the time (Jericho, Ai, Heshbon, etc.).
Shift in cultural patterns: that is, evidence of new people taking over from other peoples of a different culture (as you get in the Americas when Europeans came over bringing with them their own culture, different from that of the native Americans).
To put together the chronology of Dynastic Egypt as used by the Kemetians themselves, is in fact not a simple matter in Egyptology, and it has been done on the basis of archeological evidence like inscriptions, which provide information on certain dating, like Sothic dates. In order to understand correlation of Genesis chronology to that of Dynastic Egypt, the Egyptian dating system had to be understood from the Egyptian perspective, and then interpreted into the standard solar calendar. This would be essential to putting the time frame of Israelite departure from Kemet in its proper historical and political context.
Kemetic Cosmology rise to the Israelite identity as we know it. Detailed study of Egyptian religion (sources like Wallis Budge, provide a good insight on this) is also a useful piece of information in getting to the bottom of where the Israelite culture originates, and of course, the understanding of the timeline and influence of Asiatic neighbors in their new found home also provides insights on how these blended with original Egyptian traditions to give.
Some feel that through the Language that The Hebrew spoke Egyptian, some others say it was a form of Ethiopic script known as Ge’ez. Egyptian, and evidence suggests that their appearance in Canaan occurred suddenly in late 14th century, not after several centuries of evolution from tribes of Semetic-speaking nomads .
We first have to understand that the bible is just that, a bible. It is not a history book. The only thing that we can properly use it for is a guideline. The first non-biblical or archeological evidence of reference to the name Israel comes from Egyptian stele of Merneptah, dating to the later half of the 13th century B.C.
The Merneptah stela is an Egyptian monument constructed to glorify the achievements of Pharaoh Merneptah (1213-1203 BCE), the successor to Ramesses II. It is, specifically a 7.5-foot-high basalt monument, written in hieroglyphics, set up at Merneptah's mortuary temple at Thebes to celebrate his victory over Libyan immigrants during the fifth year of his reign (1207 or 1219 depending upon the dating adopted), boasting not only this success, but celebrating a broad conquest of Asiatic peoples. It is now housed in the Cairo museum.
The last stanza of the inscription reads as follows:
The princes are prostrate, saying: "Mercy!"
Not one raises his head among the Nine Bows.
Desolation is for Tehenu;
Hatti is pacified;
Plundered is the Canaan with every evil;
Carried off is Ashkelon;
seized upon is Gezer;
Yeno`am is made as that which does not exist;
Israel is laid waste, his seed is not;
Hurru is become a widow for Egypt!
All lands together, they are pacified;
everyone who was restless has been bound
by the king of Upper and Lower Egypt;
Be-en Re Meri-Amon; the Son of Re;
mer-ne-Ptah Hotep-hir-Maat, given life
like Re every day.
There after the Egyptians never used the name again, and indeed the next non-biblical reference to Israel comes after almost 400 years, completely bypassing the reigns of David and Solomon. This second evidential occurrence takes the shape of the Moabite Stone, discovered in 1868. It was attributed to King Mesha of Moab and provides details of conflicts between his kingdom and Israel. The Moabites dwelt on the East side of the Dead Sea, and they were a constant thorn in Israel's side throughout Old Testament history. Their original ancestor was Moab who was actually the child of Lot and his daughter who committed incest with him because she thought it was the end of the world after having been in the area when Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by fire and brimstone from heaven. One famous Moabite mentioned in the Bible was Ruth who is mentioned in the genealogy of Jesus Christ in Matthew 1. Mesha himself is mention in “2 Kings 3:4”.
Sources: Gary Greenberg—President of Biblical Archeology Society of New York, and member of American Research Center in Egypt, the Archeological Institute of America, the Society of Biblical Literature, and Egypt Exploration Society. References come from The Moses Mystery: African origins of the Jewish people., which itself builds on from hard work of many well known Egyptologists, some of whom are mentioned above, as well as Biblical scholars. - Abstract ends here
Gary Green's work, the aforementioned " Moses Mystery: African origins of the Jewish people" will be heavily relied on. He offers thought-provoking, if not compelling arguments, which is something that many can perhaps agree on, regardless of what isle of the debate they are on.
The question then arises, as it indeed had in the past, as to whether holders of Abrahamic faiths find it disturbing, the very prospect of their religions ultimately tracing their origins in the Nile Valley, or having "Kemetian" and "Mesopotamian" roots over the course of the molding of those faiths?
Ok lets look at some other connections as well. Ethiopia has a part to play as well in the puzzle.
When they conducted the first research on Indus Valley it was clear that it was not an Aryan race of invaders or Arabs that created the civilization. It was clear to researchers that it was the group of living people in that area called the Dravidians. Dravidians are migrants from Ethiopia and many of India today has Ethiopic roots in their culture and religion. Sir John Marshall, the researcher at the site was the one to make the discovery that the Indus Valley civilization was of Dravidian origin. The site where the research took place was Mohenjo-Daro. Fr Heras, Director of the Indian Historical Institute at Bombay was the first to work on deciphering the Mohenjo-Daro script, which was written in Hieroglyphs. After working on deciphering the language, researchers noticed that the language roots were in the Dravidian Tulu Kannada language. Researchers on site have expressed alarming similarities between the Dravidian Indus Valley civilization and that of Mesopotamia.Claud Schaeffer noted that they found similarities between pottery found in the Middle East and Indus Valley and that Mesopotamian Hieroglyphs, Gordon Childe also made the same claim. Researchers on the site say that Dravidian and Sumerian script are almost exactly the same. Researchers say they believe that The Dravidians made and Westward migration towards the East. Researchers believe that there were two separate migrations. One was West to east to India. The other was West to East from the Nile, or Egypt. There is mention of them being called the tribe Minas, which is very peculiar, because the first king of Egypt was called Scorpion, Menes, also spelled Mena, Meni, or Min and the Greeks called them the Maecians, who are said to be the founders of Yemen. Ethiopia and Yemen are known for having a long history together, and mixing. The Queen of Sheba was Ethiopian. That connection is what had some researchers claiming Yemen as the location of Punt, but it is unknown.
There is a rather obvious answer to this question: it’s a matter of reconciling extra-biblical reality with biblical interpretations, and the fear of the outcome becomes the issue here. This fear in turn translates into the superficial issue of whether the Israelites were ethnically and culturally "Kemetian" as opposed to "Mesopotamian". Even though staunchly an adherent to the principle of intellectual guidance by objective reality, the present author—as a person who comes from a family background characterized by guidance via a faith which draws from Abrahamic belief—can understand this feeling.
It is not a matter of attack but a fact that, religion is taught to us very early on as one that is intolerant to questioning. These are supposed to be divine words, as we are told, and its questioning can only mean the questioning of the "Almighty" one. At any rate, tracing origins of distant generations is usually handled enthusiastically and energetically, but somehow when the same is applied to the Israelites, it becomes a rather uncomfortable issue to some. The Jews, needless to point out, are a group that identifies ethnicity and faith as one.
Contemporary Jews, heavily reliant on Biblical interpretation of their history, claim a history that takes us back to a time when notable great "civilizations" or social complexes (like "Kemet") were thriving. So in essence they are claiming a separate tradition, which one would expect to be in tune with its contemporaries, in terms of record keeping. There is no reason to deny so, after all, we have clear portraits of long-lived ancestors which Israelite tradition bring to us.
Some believe that to question the Bible, God's direction, or even God Himself is tantamount to blasphemy or, on a smaller scale, a sign of disbelief.
I think it all goes back to motive. Why are we questioning God on some particular issue or doctrine or direction? If it is simply because we are trying to stall our obedience to the Lord, then we had best quit; if it is coming from a prideful heart that says, 'I know better than God,' then we are wrong to question; if we question God's authority, then that too is incorrect behavior on our part.
If, however, we question because we desperately want to know the answer, because we desperately want to know who our Lord truly is, because we need to see the light in the midst of our own confusion, then I believe it is appropriate.